I’ve been reading a lot about the oil spill catastrophe and feel very proud about how both Senators Bingaman and Udall are responding to the issue. As a passionate environmentalist and humanitarian, I’ve been wringing my hands thinking about how this oil spill will affect both the surrounding ecosystems and local economies. We are yet to feel the full impact of this catastrophe, which is sure to be epic, so I think it is incredibly important that as a nation we do our best to hold those at fault accountable while taking preventative measures to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. It was a relief to hear how serious Senator Bingaman is about getting answers on how this happened and holding people accountable. Senator Udall’s stance on regulations as being a bargain compared to an oil spill gives me hope that stronger regulations and better enforcement will prevent this from happening again. I applaud both of our Senators for their leadership on this issue and feel proud to have them representing New Mexicans on such a crucial issue while making it known that this kind of disaster is unacceptable in this country!
Letters: Sb 1070 And Unemployed Lawyers Sb 1070 And Unemployed Lawyers
Sure hope that the new Arizona immigration law is declared constitutional. Then New Mexico can solve its direst problem, that of the hordes of unemployed lawyers in New Mexico. If any law officer suspects someone of being a lawyer, they will run a radio check, and any lawyers will be handed over to Homeland Security and sequestered in those concentration camps built by Halliburton. Solve a lot of problems that way.
Letters: Horseshit Liberal Concerns Horseshit Liberal Concerns
After reading John Bear’s article, “Don’t get a Tan in Arizona,” [Re: Opinion, May 6-12] it’s evident he doesn’t know enough about the new Arizona bill to pose a sophisticated argument against it. He begins by claiming “the Arizona Legislature has passed a fascist immigration bill that allows law enforcement to stop people suspected of being in this country illegally and make them prove otherwise.” This isn’t true. The bill will permit law enforcement to investigate citizenship of people who have been apprehended or suspected of a crime; not people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally. (To tell you the truth, I was under the impression law enforcement have always been not just PERMITTED, but ENCOURAGED to do this! How silly do I feel?) Everything Bear has written is just far-left hyperbole, something I’ve come to expect living in New Mexico for nearly a decade. Just so you know, if I found myself in Mexico during a time where illegal “Blondie / Blueies” [sic] were causing all kinds of heinous shit, I’d GLADLY suffer the inconvenience of mistaken identity to support the larger effort of making things safer. I’d feel obligated as a human being to comply and not throw a ‘pissy-fit’ over my ethnicity, unfairness, civil rights or any other horseshit concern liberals seem to be fighting to protect. If I were stopped, I’d produce the documentation requested, call it my ‘luck’ for the day and go about my business. Anything else would be the easy way out. I’d even take some preventative measures as well—just as an effort to help things along. For instance, the minute I stepped foot in Mexico, I’d be at the nearest consulate asking them what documents they prefer I laminate and wear around my fucking neck on a fucking lanyard anytime I step foot outdoors. But that’s just me …
Letters: Fascism Is A Hard Right Philosophy Fascism Is A Hard Right Philosophy
[Re: Letters, “Illusions of Liberalism,” April 29-May 5] Sorry, but you’re either blissfully ignorant or blatantly untruthful. Everyone knows that the Nazis weren’t socialists, despite the name. Any more than G.W. Bush’s "Clean Skies Act" had anything to do with making the skies cleaner. The Nazis were fascists, a HARD right philosophy that seeks to govern with corporatist values. They believe that a country requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.And if you want to talk about a Ponzi scheme, the Bush tax cuts filtered massive amounts of wealth from the middle-class to the upper .5 percent! That’s pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme! The income of the top 400 families TRIPLED over the last 10 years, while income for the middle class actually declined for the first time since WWII! There’s your Ponzi scheme!
Letters: Arbitrary Notions Arbitrary Notions
Despite their superficial appeal, term limits will solve none of the problems their proponents claim for them [Re: Letters, “It’s Term Limits Time,” April 15-21]. Besides, we already have term limits. Depending on the office in question, every two, four or six years the incumbent’s term can be limited by voting him out of office. This method is better, because it can—or should—be done based on the incumbent’s voting record, and not on some arbitrary notion about how long a politician should occupy his position.
Letters: Baby Talk Baby Talk
[Re: Feature, “The Art of Baby Catching,” May 6-12] About this situation and the program for non-nurse midwives: I worked for years as an LPN, and the best of those years were in company with a wonderful family practice physician whose view of birthing was exactly as yours! He was a skilled and dedicated man who shed a tear or two at every one of his deliveries that I participated in. He was a great teacher and I ended up being “overqualified” for my license. I loved labor and delivery, especially working with patients who came in fearful and stressed, and easing them over to relaxed and confident! Perhaps you will understand if I say that I seemed to have a “gift” for laboring-patient assessments—sensed something wrong at times before I could give the physician a “reason” for my concern (they learned to listen). As a mother of three (concrete block was a very good analogy; read: shoulder dystocia), I could really relate and coach with “authority.” Wow, this wonderful article brought a rush of great memories and some large regrets—I would have found a way to relocate to New Mexico.
Letters: In Defense Of A Cowboy In Defense Of A Cowboy
[Re: Letters, “Note From a Real Cowboy,” May 6-12] Well, I don’t think I’d go so far as to call animal welfare. When you deal with horse, you do have to remember that you are dealing with an animal nine or 10 times your size, and that if they don’t trust you or understand their boundaries, they can be very dangerous. It is a common technique to correct a horse after biting. That nibbling behavior can seem sweet, but can become quite hazardous. Think of Cesar Milan firmly touching a dog on the neck to snap it out of its fixation or remind it of its place in the pack. What is a little worrying is that this behavior is described as yearly. Smacking a horse after biting is typically something you deal with when they are curious and mouthy youngster and then rarely have to again. I know we all have a lot of sympathy for this therapeutic horse, but the proper response to a horse "laying into you" is certainly not to reassure the horse or act shocked and back off. Perhaps a better method for Mr. Jolley to use would be to back Promise up vigorously out of his space, to reinforce the boundaries. To people who breed, train and show horses, some of these therapy programs can seem kind of bogus. A lot of the time, they use abused horses because they think there is a possibly helpful common experience to be used in the process. The clients are there mostly to observe, touch the horses and overcome their fear, which brings them closer to an animal they believe overcomes the same fear to trust them. Abused horses are rarely safe and can rarely completely recover from the abuse without extensive retraining. They lose their trust and more importantly their willingness to learn and work. Still, consider that there are people who are infinitely more kind to their horses to the point that they make them equally as untrustworthy. If a rider is not confident in their own standing, the horse becomes dangerous and unpleasant. At shows there are plenty of examples where the horse is obviously walking all over their doting owner, only to be punished when they misbehave for a behavior that has been cultivated by poor horsemanship. While Jolley’s action may be more severe than some would like, I don’t believe they are as detestable as my fellow horse people (above) do. He clearly appreciates his horses and the spiritual and emotional effects they have, and while I would also agree that a more professional trainer with safer horses is probably better for the job, I hardly think we can characterize Jolley as an abusive owner.
Letters: Ninth Tack For Trailside Tact? Ninth Tack For Trailside Tact?
[Re: Opinion, “Eight Tacks for Trailside Tact,” May 13-19] You forgot to include the extremely irritating phrase "on your left" in your hatery.And if the word recumbent gives you an uneasy feeling try this, "girls rarely make passes at Freds who lie flat on their assess …"
Letters: Slow Down When Passing Slow Down When Passing
[Re: Opinion, “Eight Tacks for Trailside Tact,” May 13-19] On your left is appreciated, but there are lots of old dogs and owners who don’t hear as well as they used to. The shout out is nice, but slow down in case they don’t hear it. If slowing down is a problem for you, you need to be riding somewhere else designed for speed, and that is NOT the Bosque, or Tramway, or most of the other paths!
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to letters@alibi.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter. Word count limit for letters is 300 words.
